Bass !!!!!!!!!!

[pinknerve]

Ok, since I will be getting a polk sub very shortly, I was hoping that by getting it I will be able to get better sound out of my speakers, since they won't have to provide the bass anymore. Do you think this will be true, I mean the sub should be giving all the bass now, right????????

[TrappedUnder Ice]

The idea behind a full system... Tweeter/mid/sub is exactly what your aiming for. By adding a sub- normally it will take over the 80hz and below function of the system....by doing this... it will allow your mids too do what they are made to do...play mids...and of course the tweets will blend better.
The trick normally in a system is balance. getting a good balance between the loudness of the sub and the mid is key. sub can easlily drown out your mids and highs....Funny thing...some like this effect! Its all up too your taste.

Good luck and enjoy the forum

[MacLeod]

Originally posted by TrappedUnder Ice
sub can easlily drown out your mids and highs....Funny thing...some like this effect! Its all up too your taste.


Yeah. Its a shame that so many people define how good a system is by how much bass it puts out.

Bass is supposed to be no more than an extension of the midrange. It shouldnt be louder than the rest of the music.

[1996blackmax]

Originally posted by MacLeod
Yeah. Its a shame that so many people define how good a system is by how much bass it puts out.

Bass is supposed to be no more than an extension of the midrange. It shouldnt be louder than the rest of the music.


Well said.

[exalted512]

yea but every now and then its fun to crank it...
-Cody

[AustinKP]

Originally posted by exalted512
yea but every now and then its fun to crank it...
-Cody if it wasn't, then nobody would ever buy a brahma...

[neomagus00]

naturally... there are some times you just HAVE to rattle your skull so badly that your brain can't figure out which ear it wants to crawl out of... that's half the fun :p

[MacLeod]

No doubt! A 155 db burp will always be cool! I just wish more people measured a systyem by its SQ than how big its subs were. I get laughed at when I tell people Im running a single 8.

I dont even demo my system anymore. I did to this one dude at work who "was in to stereos" (his consisted of Sony 6x9s in the rear and factory fronts running off a Sony head unit) and played Yes' '90125' and Rush's 'Test for Echo' since these are super clean recordings and sound great and he didnt say a word. Just sat there and said, "yeah, thats cool". Now my system may not rival Buwalda or Biggs but it aint no slouch and deserves more than a unemotional "thats cool"!

So on a whim I stuck in The Police 'Syncronicity' and played "Wrapped Around Your Finger" which has a heavy bass guitar with only some mild drums and vocals and is the closest thing I have to rap and cranked it up. Now my MTX is severley overpowered and in way too small a box so it didnt sound good by any stretch of the imagination but it was loud! My buddy sure did perk up. "Yeah! Now that sounds good!!" :rolleyes:

[exalted512]

im not stopping until it makes my stomach hurt...
which is not half as bad as one of my friends...hes not stopping until he cracks a window...his plans are 4 15" XXXs...in a focus...
-Cody

[VR3]

I thought I should chime in here with my "DUH" comment of the night...

Bass is not an extention of the midrange...but the midBASS - I don't know bout YOU, but I don't want A female singer soundin like a man...unless she WANTS to sound like a man...

:p

And I tell you something else...I like bass, but I like to know what the music says too, HOWEVER, for Car Audio - it is a completely different "Atmosphere" - and I do like loud, thumping bass, even if it colors the music a little bit. Not that I dont like accurate music, I do - my 2 channel system in my room is geared torwards it, and setup to be so - but the car, is a completely different 'attitude' for me and has different requirements...I'm not listening critically, therefore isnt for critical listening, bass would be my top priority in a car...

[kenstewart]

I'm with Mac on this, especially since he, Neo, and a few others just helped me out with my setup. The single 8" sounds awesome in my truck and helps to round out the total sound in my vehicle. I'm real curious about trying the Polk momo 8"s though since people are saying they're better for SQ than my current RF.

[MacLeod]

Originally posted by Vr3MxStyler2k3
I thought I should chime in here with my "DUH" comment of the night...

Bass is not an extention of the midrange...but the midBASS - I don't know bout YOU, but I don't want A female singer soundin like a man...unless she WANTS to sound like a man...




Um , split hairs much?

Not quite sure how a sub playing 80 Hz and below would make a woman sound like a man.
:confused:

Midrange is generally considered from 80-3500 Hz and so a sub playing from 80 Hz down would be continuing on from the midrange.

[VR3]

Question - what would you want to cross your sub at 80hz in a car? I figured you car folks would be crossing at 60hz...HMM

Particularly if that sub is located anywhere near you....80hz can be localized, its on the brink of being invisible, but not quite there yet...Try crossing lower :p

And you're also forgeting that when you cross the mains off, and the subwoofer off at 80hz, depending on how you are doing it, you can create a dip or bump in that range, as the subwoofer STILL hits above 80hz (the crossover is like a 12 or so db roll off), while the mains will be hitting below 80hz...

To me, a subwoofer should play with the midbass section of the music, 60hz and down, particularly for music. 80hz is pretty high, as I have recently found, but great for movies as it supplies more impact to the movies, OR music - depends on what you are searching for in your music. The bass drum has more kick at 80hz, but it dosnt sound natural to me...

Anyways, Bass should be an extention of the midbass, and midbass is the like 50-80hz kick, that is where Polks have that 'kick' - 50-80hz.

OR* Maybe it is different in a car, and if it is...I apologize!

[neomagus00]

no need to apologise, but it is a bit different in the car. a reference-level signal at 60 Hz is something that most mid(basse)s can't keep up with, but jump up a third of an octave to 80 Hz and you knock off nearly half your excursion... this is good. plus, the combination of your other two comments keeps it all in check - 80 Hz is just at the level of invisibility, and the rolloff (typically 12 dB/oct for the mid's highpass) keeps enough bass in the front to localise it there. plus, in a car, the entire thing resonates, so you've got real omnidirectional bass :p but really, 50-60 Hz is the ideal, but the realities of 1 midrange/channel force that higher...

and we deal with the dips/bumps by using appropriate xover alignments or, more often, eqing them away, or, for the uncultured, ignoring them :).

i would divide the frequencies a little differently - subbass, 16-65 Hz, midbass, 65-250, midrange, 250-3500, treble 3500-80k

and i have my HT sub xovered at 100, but it happens to blend nearly perfectly with the mains there, so i leave well enough alone

[VR3]

Yeah, in HT (movies) you can get away with incredibly high tunes - particularly if you have mini sats, as they usually roll off at 125hz (Or higher) and require a higher xover point with the sub. The Bose cubes are crossed at 250hz...insane...

Probally when you cross that high is the sub starts producing vocals, and during movies...that becomes very distracting, particularly if the sub is under the couch (like Bose says you can do) - therefore your listening to some guy talking to your butt...lol

, and I can see that in a car, the midbass would have to work alot harder to produce bass or midbass, being what it is in...

Some people in HA even cross their sub at 50-40hz, or even lower - or dont use them at all... My speakers could accomplish this with about 200 more watts, but with only 125, the -12db is 25hz... pretty good for the power they're given, and the room...

Carry on :)

[MacLeod]

You dont have a set point to cross over anything. You set it up as to how it sounds best. Its just that generally 80 Hz is the starting point.

Ive had mine crossed from 50-120 Hz and have settled on 90 Hz for my sub and 70'ish for my mids.

Midbass is from around 80-200 Hz. 60 Hz is waaaay to low to be considered midbass.

Either way, we're only quibbling over terms here. We both agree that bass should pick up around 80 Hz and below. ;)

[VR3]

Well, I am going by a 3-way speaker here...

Which usually goes this

Tweeter - crossed over around 2-1khz, then the midrange picks up at that point, then drops off at 80-90hz, then the woofer picks up at that point, and the bass department dosnt count to me until it hits below 50hz.... 50hz down to 1hz is good for me :)

[neomagus00]

Originally posted by MacLeod
We both agree that bass should pick up around 80 Hz and below. ;)
i don't! :D i want a 20-20 sinebomb to sound perfectly flat from top to bottom (then, of course, i switch on an extra eq curve and some BBE, but that's beside the point :))

actually, i switch some of that processing off when i listen to 'real' music - pure vocals, or classical, for instance... the extras seem to make metal and rock sound better.

and i'm surprised neither of you noticed that i extended treble to 80 kHz... but frequencies up to that point have been tenuously shown to enhance the listening experience, when accurately reproduced... i want 1/4" tweeters and DVD-audio to see for myself if it's true...

[VR3]

Anything above 20khz will enhance the music for your DOG and that is about IT!

I am here to tell you, any speaker that says it hits above 20khz is talking about the overall response of like -5db... lol

Mine hit up to 30khz, -12db...

[AustinKP]

dang, I had a good reply to vr3sidukslkbid's original comment, but then you guys both addressed them all. Neo, I noticed immediately your "up to 80kHz" and was curious if that was a typo. Human hearing, like you said, rarely extends above 18-20kHz, so I'm dubious that anything above could "enhance" the listening experience. I could be wrong, but I really would have to hear it for myself.

[MacLeod]

Originally posted by Vr3MxStyler2k3
Well, I am going by a 3-way speaker here...

Which usually goes this

Tweeter - crossed over around 2-1khz, then the midrange picks up at that point, then drops off at 80-90hz, then the woofer picks up at that point, and the bass department dosnt count to me until it hits below 50hz.... 50hz down to 1hz is good for me :)

50 is usually too low at least in CA. Your midrange wont be able to get down that low to keep it all together. Hell even a good midbass usually wont play 50 Hz with any authority unless its an 8" midbass.

Also you usually wont see tweeters crossed over that low. Most wont go below 3500 Hz.

Can you even hear frequencies below 15 Hz?

[VR3]

You can't hear frequencies below 20hz. However, you can *FEEL* frequencies below 20hz, which is half the fun of HT, stuff falling off the walls when it is completely silent... BRILLIANT!

[neomagus00]

i've seen (well, felt) a demo wherein a 16 Hz tone was played with such force that the spoken word was perfectly audible, but completely unintelligible... the tone modulated your voice to the extent that it sounded like mush...

austin - i don't claim it; it'd be interesting to know for sure one way or another though, so i'm crawling for a paper of some sort

and vr - i can hear some dog whistles :)

[AustinKP]

Originally posted by MacLeod
Um , split hairs much?
oh yeah, I thought that was funny

[MacLeod]

I rekon the benefit to a speaker with a frequency respone up around 30 KHz is that it will play the stuff you can hear louder and clearer because its natural rolloff doesnt begin til way out in the inaudible range as opposed to a tweet that stops at 20 KHz. It would start rolling off in the teens somewhere and I would think that would be audible whereas a tweet that went to 40 KHz would sound linear all the way thru.

[VR3]

There are not many speakers with an overall FR of 20khz... if there is, it is probally a Full range driver...

But most speakers have a -3db repsonse of 20khz, which is normal. The overall response are those extroidinary number of 30khz +

[neomagus00]

Originally posted by Vr3MxStyler2k3
There are not many speakers with an overall FR of 20khz... if there is, it is probally a Full range driver...

But most speakers have a -3db repsonse of 20khz, which is normal. The overall response are those extroidinary number of 30khz +
huh??? :confused:

[VR3]

A speaker starts rolling off around 17khz, making the -3db response 20khz...

IE: My speakers at -3db, 20khz, -12db 30khz...

The upwards response home speakers (or any speakers) list in the upper khz range is nothing but a marketing ploy, there is no chance that rating is -12db OR -3db...

The difference is would make wouldnt be audible to you.

Infact, most males over 35 cant even hear past 17khz...much less to 20khz...

Full Range (FR) drivers that play the entire spectrum (or try to) usually have a roll off between 15-20khz (-3db), my Pioneers are 17khz (-3db) and they have more than spectacular top end....

Even the best speakers in the world have a -3db response of 20khz...

[Jstas]

The major problem in this thread that will affect all statements concerning everything from crossover points to frequency response is a thing called white noise.

Defined: Acoustical or electrical noise of which the intensity is the same at all frequencies within a given band.

White noise is menifested in road noise, something of which a home environment is devoid of and where Vr3MxStyler2k3's experience solely lies.

Crossover points for a car are different than for a house. In a house, you often have the luxury of the space needed to properly design and tune an enclosure to maximize the results from the drivers contained in those enclosures. Thusly, subwoofer boxes can get to very large proportions to enable the very low bottom end in the frequency range to be reproduced. You also get an enclosure tuned for a certain mid-range frequency that compliments the driver in many cases and provides a baffle to mount the tweeter close enough to the center of that midrange to minimize separation in the directional range.

You don't have the luxuries in a car and enclosures are often times, doors, A-pillars, kick-panels, rear package shelves and other voids between interior and exterior body panels. These "enclosures" are far from properly sealed and not constructed with sonic resonance reduction in mind. To achieve the same effect as a good pair of home speakers, one needs to do some serious custom work.

Add to that, the white noise mentioned earlier. There are only two ways to remedy that. Either play a signal that duplicates the white noise but 180 degrees out of phase and the white noise is eliminated. The other way is to just over-power teh noise with brute force. Way number two is insanely cheaper and the preffered way to go. This is also the reason crossover points are high. A mid-range or mid-bass speaker does not have the size nor power handling at it's lowest frequency range extension to faithfully reproduce sound at an audible level with distorting. Most 6.5 inch drivers are well into thier frequency roll-off range at 80 Hz and it just gets worse below that point. Add white noise to the mix and at a -3 dB drop, that speaker is already not producing a chunk of information at a level audible enough to be heard over regular wind noise, tire hum and engine droning. So what do you do? Push that crossover point to 80 Hz on the sub because that will play loud enough and keep teh mid-range/mid-bass crossed over at 60Hz to keep a balance across the crossover points.

Also, 80Hz may be at the very edge of directional sound but when your listening area is less than 6 feet from any speaker in most cases, directional sound is not a concern at sucha low frequency. The subwoofer frequency does not have enough room to expand and show any separation or direction in relation to the other speakers in such a small area. On top of that, most subs are located in a trunk or behind a seat where sound-deadening, insulation and seat padding do an effective job at dispersing the sound and creating enough reflections that cabin gain becomes a factor and basically turns the entire passenger cabin and/or cargo space into an enclosure.

Lastly, bass is not an extension of mid-range or mid-bass. If it was then we would not need seperate speakers to recreate the sounds faithfully. Bass is loosely defined as the lowest part of the musical range. If bass is an extention of mid-range then ther midrange which is defined as the middle part of an audio frequency. would be a misnomer. Without bass, there is no middle part. Granted, bass and midrange are not exactly technical terms but rather terms used to define a more complex idea that society in general has accepted as a means to convey an idea simply. By bastardizing such a definition, not only are over-complicating things but sparking the fire of mis-information to spread. It doesn't reallt matter what you think when it comes to concrete ideas with definitions based on tried and true science. You can argue it all you want but the evidence is staring you right in the face.

For more information on why hearing and audible sound is affected by affected by the enviroment, check out this page: http://home.tir.com/~ms/concepts/concepts.html

There is alot of good info there on listening room design ideas summed up as Architectural Lighting and Acoustics. Granted, it may not apply to an automotive enviroment directly but the concepts do because sound is sound, whether it is in your car or in your home, it still behaves the same way.

[MacLeod]

I know this is a trivial thing here but we seem to be hung up on this one phrase.

Since sub-bass takes over where the midrange leaves off, usually around 80 Hz, I consider this to be an extension of the midrange.

To me this means that the sub-bass is not a seperate entity and thus shouldnt be played louder than the rest of the music (unless its rap or hip-hop and who cares cause we're talking about music).

A properly tuned system wont have the bass frequencies blaring out over the vocals and other instruments like guitar.

Therefore by saying bass is an extension of midrange, I mean that bass is idealy a part of the music as a whole and not off by itself.

[exalted512]

and all this time i thought white noise was the dead people talking to us in digital recordings...
-Cody

[neomagus00]

Originally posted by exalted512
and all this time i thought white noise was the dead people talking to us in digital recordings...
-Cody
yeah, i tried that when i was like 12... i listened to nearly four frickin hours of white noise before i gave up... drove me nuts :)

and i think jstas's comment on the labelling of the frequency bands has - unusually - missed the mark, and that we've been clear on what we mean... splitting hairs, maybe, but clear...

[AustinKP]

So if I understand correctly, you're saying something like this:
Tweeters play at the top of the audible frequency spectrum. They extend down to, say, 3.5kHz. At which point, the mids take over, and extend down to 80 hz. There, the sub takes over, and plays down to 10 hz. In this way, the sub is an extension of the mid, because it plays what the woofer would, if it wasn't high-passed. I think you're in agreement with Jstas, it's just a confusion over terminology.

[TrappedUnder Ice]

%$^#$&^&*$6....#%^#&^*$&*$^&$%^&#7

There...that should clear things up...right? :D

[neomagus00]

Originally posted by TrappedUnder Ice
%$^#$&^&*$6....#%^#&^*$&*$^&$%^&#7

There...that should clear things up...right? :D
word

austin - yep, confusion would about explain it :p

[MacLeod]

Originally posted by AustinKP
So if I understand correctly, you're saying something like this:
Tweeters play at the top of the audible frequency spectrum. They extend down to, say, 3.5kHz. At which point, the mids take over, and extend down to 80 hz. There, the sub takes over, and plays down to 10 hz. In this way, the sub is an extension of the mid, because it plays what the woofer would, if it wasn't high-passed. I think you're in agreement with Jstas, it's just a confusion over terminology.

Right. I said that a while ago. We're all in agreement but we're quibbling over terms.

However Thomas does make a good point; you dont need a cap. :D

[exalted512]

i need a new truck...or about $50k should suffice...
-Cody

[neomagus00]

suffice, maybe, but why stop there? :D

[MacLeod]

I want one of the new Dodge Ram SRT/10 Quad Cabs!!

Yeah baby! 9 mpg, 500 horsepower and 4 doors!

[exalted512]

but...why a dodge??
-Cody

[MacLeod]

Originally posted by exalted512
but...why a dodge??
-Cody

500 horsepower 8.3 liter V10!!!

Nuff said!

[neomagus00]

shiny, but hideous...

Much better:
http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/dhuston/photos/cars/thumbs/carrera%20gt.jpg

You want domestic ?:
http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/dhuston/photos/cars/thumbs/corvette.jpg

and the allah of affordable amazingness:
http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/dhuston/photos/cars/thumbs/exige%20iso.jpg

[MacLeod]

Yeah I guess these Rams can be intimidating to some.

Keep your wimpy 1500 lb car that will get blown over with the first strong wind and Ill keep my 6000 pound monster and run you over when youre in my way! :p

[AustinKP]

Originally posted by MacLeod
Yeah I guess these Rams can be intimidating to some.

Keep your wimpy 1500 lb car that will get blown over with the first strong wind and Ill keep my 6000 pound monster and run you over when youre in my way[...] ...and then I'll run out of gas 2 miles down the road...even though I had a full tank 3 miles ago...and I've been coasting downhill since then...but at least my truck has a spoiler......

[MacLeod]

Originally posted by AustinKP
...and then I'll run out of gas 2 miles down the road...even though I had a full tank 3 miles ago...and I've been coasting downhill since then...but at least my truck has a spoiler......


WAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

ROFLMAO!!!

Yup. Thats the only thing a Ram SRT CANT pass.....a gas station!!

LOLOL!! Thats too funny dude!! :D

[neomagus00]

okay, that was funny :D.

of course, the exige is something you wouldn't pass, either... granted, i'd be practically invisible to you, and you'd probably run me over without noticing, but other than that...

[MacLeod]

Originally posted by AustinKP
but at least my truck has a spoiler......

One other thing Mr SmartyBritches, yeah Ive got a spoiler and at least mine is functional!!! Not one of those huge ass wings on the back of a FRONT WHEEL DRIVE ricer!

[exalted512]

Originally posted by MacLeod
One other thing Mr SmartyBritches, yeah Ive got a spoiler and at least mine is functional!!! Not one of those huge ass wings on the back of a FRONT WHEEL DRIVE ricer!
functional? at what speed?
-Cody

[neomagus00]

actually, in all seriousness, spoilers aren't necessarily evil, even in front wheel drives... at speed, they can help keep the back end down, which is good, cause weight distribution is about 65/35 on the front, so oversteer can be a big problem.

but yeah, we're talking 80+ mph for any level of functionality...

[MacLeod]

Well I guess at any speed. They let the wind push the back end of the truck down for more traction as trucks are ridiculously light in the back end and 500 lb/ft of torque tends to spin the tires.

[neomagus00]

it only makes a respectable amount of downforce at highway speeds... going around a 20 mph corner, a spoiler ain't gonna do squat, even if it's like the huge jacked-up ones on nascars

[MacLeod]

Well one things for sure. When youve got a 500 hp/500 lbs/ft 8.3 liter Viper engine in a pickup truck, you need all the downforce you can get.

[exalted512]

Originally posted by MacLeod
Well I guess at any speed. They let the wind push the back end of the truck down for more traction as trucks are ridiculously light in the back end and 500 lb/ft of torque tends to spin the tires.
id venture to say at a strip, a cement bag in the back would help more than the spoiler
-Cody

[MacLeod]

Yes but then youre adding weight which is bad.

[exalted512]

like i said, i think a cement bag in the back would do more good than a spoiler, even with the added weight

99% of spoilers are just for looks, the rest are just for looks until you get up to 150 mph
-Cody

[neomagus00]

i think 150 is a slight exaggeration... consider that an F1 car, at 180 mph, makes enough downforce to pull manhole covers out of the road... it would actually enable the car to drive upside down, there's that much force...

[Jstas]

Okay, okay, okay. Stop, everyone.

First off, too much weight on the front wheels like a FWD car has will induce UNDERsteer, not oversteer. Very few FWD cars out there will oversteer and even then, its usually only modified vehicles or something like a Dodge Neon ACR. A spoiler on the rear of a FWD car will not stop oversteer or understeer for that matter. They do not ever stop oversteer or understeer. A spoiler on a car that travels at sane highway speeds will do nothing more than provide straight line stability and break up the air flow coming off teh back of teh vehicle. What this does is that it makes the pocket of low pressure air behind the vehicle bigger. By doing this, it disturbs the flow of the high pressure air coming off teh top and bottom of the car which then causes lift. That big ass pocket of air is what prevents lift from happening. It also causes a greater amount of drag. That is why on a street vehicle you have spoilers and on a race car you have a wing.

Wings cause downforce, not spoilers. Spoilers cause very minimal downforce and even at speeds where a spoiler will cause downforce it is negligible compared to the strength of the forces acting on the vehicle that downforce would assist in counter acting. Any spoiler for a street car is there for looks in most cases unless it is something slippery like an Audi TT or a Porsche 911 which need spoilers to prevent high pressure air from lifting the car just high enough so that crosswinds can break traction and cause spins and crashes. Your average Honda Civic is dirty aerodynamically and will not benefit much from a spoiler or wing at all. Niether will an SRT-10 Ram. That front air dam does more for the truck aerodynamically than any wing. The air dam is almost ineffective also because there are no side skirts like what is on the Lightning to maintain that air flow under teh vehicle. Side skirts help keep high pressure air from building up under the chassis of teh vehicle. The reason is that if teh air dam is lower than the rest of the vehicle, it will have a pocket of low pressure air travelling along behind it. Once the airflow passes teh front wheels, high pressure air gets drawn in under teh chassis again and still causes that lift that was spoken of earlier. The only thing the air dam does for teh SRT-10 Ram is to keep high pressure air from building up under that excessivly large nose and lifting the front wheels off teh ground. If teh SRT-10 Ram, had larger side skirts, it is unlikely that it would need a spoiler at all.

Now, F1 cars are not downforce kings. Yes, they do produce downforce but not neraly enough to hold the car upside-down. The performance that they can achieve is gotten through computer controlled drivelines, suspension setup and the downforce produced by the wings. Indy cars, not IRL cars but the CART Champ cars, now they are the ones that will produce enough downforce to hold the car upside down. Also, top fuel dragsters and funny cars will produce an insane amount of downforce over the rear wheels. But, looking at both the CART and F1 cars and teh drag cars, one can see teh extreme angle needed to produce any amount of downforce. Hell, look at the NASCAR cars and the angle of the spoilers on those cars. That is the kind of angle you need on a car to produce downforce. These mamby-pamby wings and spoliers on production cars are nothing more than "Look at me!" parts. If you think they are anything more then I really hop you don't go trying to test it out because you will just end up hurting or killing yourself or someone else.



As far as the SRT-10 Ram goes, why bother? It cost as much as a Viper does when all is said and done with mark-ups and such and Chrysler recommends that you not tow or haul anything with it. For all intents and purposes, it is just a big, slow Viper with a non-weatherproof trunk. I used to think they were hot-shit and then I realized what it actually was and I'd rather take a Ford Lighting (if they were still being made) or a Chevy Silverado SS over the SRT-10 Ram anyday. At least those other two trucks will still do truck stuff and not be obnoxious about it either.

Wanna see another waste of a truck? Look at the Toyota Tundra S-Runner.

[MacLeod]

Originally posted by Jstas

As far as the SRT-10 Ram goes, why bother? It cost as much as a Viper does when all is said and done with mark-ups and such and Chrysler recommends that you not tow or haul anything with it. For all intents and purposes, it is just a big, slow Viper with a non-weatherproof trunk. I used to think they were hot-shit and then I realized what it actually was and I'd rather take a Ford Lighting (if they were still being made) or a Chevy Silverado SS over the SRT-10 Ram anyday. At least those other two trucks will still do truck stuff and not be obnoxious about it either.


Why bother? Because its a 500 horsepower, badass to the bone Dodge Ram!

So it cant tow. So what? A Corvetter cant haul any passengers. So what?

Its also $30,000 cheaper than a Viper. The Quad Cab version stickers for $51,000. The Viper is over 80,000.

Youre right tho that the Lightning is a better performer. The Ram SRT-10 is like all of Mopars muscle cars; light to light racers. The Lightning is a well rounded badass that is as capable in the twisties as the straightaways.

I think its sad theyre not making the Lightning anymore. I think the new bodystyle would look awesome.

[exalted512]

so all in all...I'm right:p
i would never want a chevy SS...but thats just me
-Cody

[AustinKP]

Originally posted by Jstas
I'd rather take a Ford Lighting (if they were still being made) Wait, I thought they were planning on coming out with the new lightning in '06. Did they ditch those plans?

http://www.et.byu.edu/~austinkp/truck/lightning1.jpg

http://www.et.byu.edu/~austinkp/truck/lightning2.jpg

http://www.et.byu.edu/~austinkp/truck/lightning3.jpg

[Jstas]

The Lightning has been postponed, not killed off.

Here is some info from an AutoWeek article.

http://www.autoweek.com/news.cms?newsId=101065

[MacLeod]

Awesome! The Lightning is one of Fords best ever product. Killing it off would be as stupid as, say, GM killing off the Camaro! :mad:

[AustinKP]

I agree with ya there Mac. I think Chevrolet would have benefitted much more by redesigning the Camaro like Ford did to the Mustang, instead of completely killing it, with hopes of resurrecting it later...
Jstas, what color is your lightning? Any plans on getting the new one in '08?

[Jstas]

Black.

http://users.snip.net/~jrjr/truck2.gif

And no. No new Lightning in '08. At least there aren't any plans to. I have another project to finish plus two other ideas I want to work on. I also need to get myself a house and I'm working on that first. Next car I get is going to be a used Thunderbird from 94-95 with a 4.6L V8. I had a V6 model, infact, here it is:

http://www.tccoa.com/rides/pics/stajoh.jpg

That was the last vehicle I had before the Lightning. I want another one and I miss that one very much. It was like driving a Barcalounger down the road. It was fast enough, very quiet and extremely comfortable. It was a huge car too and I could fit 4 people comfortably, the 5th could sit in the back in the middle and be mildly agitated if need be. The trunk was massive and a simple shock change, urethane bushings with beefier anti-sway bars and the 245/50/HR17 BFG Comp T/A's on the forged aluminum Cragar 17"x8" SS/980 wheels and I was dogging BMW M3's on River Road up the eastern side of PA.

A ton of potential in that car and insanely comfortable. It was probably my most favorite ride yet. That and the fact that it was a Thunderbird just gave it this aura. Sure, it was fairly common but with the color shifting paint on the car, it got stares everywhere I went.

[AustinKP]

Originally posted by Jstas
I was dogging BMW M3's on River Road up the eastern side of PA.
Huh? M3's have like 330 hp, right? Did you have some engine mods as well? I'd guess the 94-95 thunderbird 4.6 had around 220hp?
I love the look of your truck though :) The wheels and the front fascia look great:cool:

[Jstas]

Power isn't everything. That Thunderbird was a V6 and had a weight balance of 52/48 front to rear. That is pretty good and adding the wheels, tires and suspension parts improved handling enough that I could take turns just as fast and sometimes faster than an M3. At least the few that tried to tangle with me. I had no power modifications at all, just a fairly well balanced car and enough guts to push the car to its limits. Yes, it was heavy and that was a drawback. If the car weighed maybe 800 pounds less, it would be a terror on the streets with just a more potent V6. It didn't weigh less though and that meant that the car had limits before all that weight would over-come the force of friction that is giving it the traction it needed to stay stuck to the road. That is what handling is about. Taking that limit and pushing it as far as you can and raising the bar.

If your car handles well and can take turns at high speed then there is less speed you have to drop to complete a turn. That is the point of a race. To get there first. If you want to get there first then you have to be the fastest. To be the fastest, you have to have the highest average speed from point a to point b. A well handling car will give you that because while your car only hits 140, it may not have to slow down to 70 in the turns. Meanwhile, the M3 will blow past at a buck, sixty but might have to slow down to 50 to take those same turns. Not only is there that 20-30 MPH difference but the M3 has to start slowing down sooner than 8you would and that increases the amount of tim spent on the track. More time at similar speeds means less overal average speed. That means the M3 loses. Of course that is just using the M3 as an example because that is what we were discussing.

There is alot more to a vehicle than engine and often times, you see a car with a ton of power that can't control it on the street. So many people put big power in the car and don't do anything to sort out the suspension and brakes. You get more bang for your buck from suspension mods than anything else. If they are done right that is. A well sorted out suspension lets you exploit your car's power to its fullest extent.

Look at the Lotus Elise. It has something like 170 horsepower and it will beat dowqn a Corvette. Two reasons, number one, it's very light and what weight it has is very well balanced . Number two, its suspension controls the movements of the car very well. My truck is an example in the other direction. I have considerably more power than an M3 but I am not nearly as fast because I am carrying well over a thousand pounds more weight than the M3. I also have a weight distribution somewhere in the 55/45 to 60/40 range front/rear. Not exactly conducive to go-kart like handling. The truck is also designed to carry alot more weight than the M3 or Elise.

Performance is not about power. Power is important but not nearly as important as being able to control all that power. Without control, to paraphrase, you are like a retard in the bouncy balls.

[neomagus00]

hehe... so you're saying that i shouldn't play in the bouncy balls?

oh, yeah, that was actually pretty informative, danke.